# Talk:Loudspeaker/Archive 4

## "Edison issued a patent"

Thomas Edison issued a British patent


Where I grew up, only governments could issue patents. Occurs several times in the article. Jidanni (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly should be '...was issued...' as the phrasing here is unclear to at least one reader. Go ahead and change it. 04:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It smells like a regional linguistic oddity. Surely meant 'was issued' in more usual terms. I've noted it myself, but wasn't hunting odd phrases at the time. Be bold and change it. ww (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed it, but "was issued" seems a bit too passive - as if he did not invent the method. Is anyone else picking up on that?--82.152.178.100 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the correct verb is granted. 75.67.180.138 (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

## Electromagnetic effects

I have hear before that speakers should not be placed next to TV screens because they could cause damage. I don't know whether this is true or not. Can powerful speakers cause damage to the TV? What types of TV will be affected?

Not damage, but interference with the quality of hte picture in the case of TVs using cathode ray tubes. LCD, plasma, and projection TVs are effectively immune. The problem is stray magnetic fields from the driver magnets. If these are shielded, than the interference is minimal and perhaps even absent. Some drivers are shielded, and it is a selling point, so manufacturers usually include this as a feature.

Also what other things, such as wireless router can damage speakers

Heat, decay (ie, insects, mold, pollution, ...), over driving into mechanical damage, DC signals (even very little), inquisitive childrena and pets, accident, deterioration from old age, ... The cabinets, of course can be damaged by any number of things, and if those cause structural damage (ie, opened joints), then the performance of the speaker will suffer, perhaps badly, even if the drivers are in perfect shape.

Finally, do amplification units generally have inbuilt controls to stop its speakers being damaged by exceeding the speakers'

No. The problem is very difficult, varies with frequency (tweeters are much more fragile), and depends on the very recent history of the the signal the speaker has been exposed to.

Rated powers, is this built into the speakers themselves, or is there normally no protection in place?

There is normally no protection in place. Rated power, to the extent the specification has any meaning at all (often seems to have been invented by the marketing department) refers to safe amplifier power while playing reasonable signals at reasonable levels. A very small amplifier driven into clipping (ie, very severe distortion) is dangerous to any loudspeaker whatever its rating. And, a very low rated speaker will be perfectly safe driven by a very large amplifier in good condition if the signal and level are kept reasonable. There is no satisfactory rating technique which can help with this problem. Consider that some electronic music (eg, some electronica, some techno, etc) has signals which are very low, very sustained, and often played loud. These are dangers to any speaker intended for home use.

(So that I'm not just asking questions in the discussions section) should any of this information be put into the article?

The problem is sufficiently tangled that it would be more than the article could manage if well covered. A brief section noteing the issue and its complications and referring to a separate article would probably be the way to go. ww (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much--82.152.178.100 (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for such a detailed answer, ww; it is appreciated --82.152.178.100 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

## Possibility of article split

The different types of loudspeakers section might be a little to large. May I suggest it be moved? I have no idea of WP policy on movements (and currently don't have enough time to find out or discuss this in further detail --82.152.178.100 (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This question has been considered at some length here (see talk archive). The decision has, in effect, been to include the variety of drivers section, rather than split it out into a separate article. The article is long, but the subject is complex (rather more than many folks wish, but if wishes were horses....) and the article shouldn't mask the complexity.
This is one of the few areas of life in the developed world where engineering detail impinges on consumer choice in a way that allows the consumer an option. In general, consumers are not offered the choice of different engine types (gasoline, steam, electric, equine, ...) when buying a car. In loudspeakers, one can have electro-dynamic, ribbon, mixed ribbon and electro-dynamic, electrostatic, and on and on. Stirred into the mix as well, any number of enclosure types (reflex, acoustic suspension, transmission line, horn, ...). And every choice can be, and often is, audibly different. ww (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

## Why self-powered loudspeakers came into being

I fact-tagged this sentence: "Partly for this reason, manufacturers are increasingly combining power amplifier electronics (a typically lower profit item) with finished speaker systems to create powered speakers with an overall higher market value." My reason for adding the tag was that it has been my understanding that self-powered loudspeakers came into being not to sell amplifiers which had become a commodity item, but to enhance speaker performance by tailoring amplifier characteristics to driver/enclosure performance limits, and to tweak the enclosure's overall sound by applying equalization where needed. Furthermore, the powered speaker can include limiting circuits to protect the drivers from users attempting to exceed recommended sound pressure levels. The powered enclosure's speaker wires are extremely short, virtually eliminating speaker wire resistance from damping factor calculations. Finally, amplifiers designed into loudspeaker enclosures will always be of known power output, not too weak or too strong; a situation which means that public perception of the loudspeaker product will never be diminished by improper amplifier selection by the user. Until reading it here, I had never heard that amps were boxed into speakers because they weren't turning a profit alone. That's why I fact-tagged the sentence... If I'm ignorant of the reference the original writer was using, I'd like to see it, please. The fact tag was recently removed by User:ww but I'm putting it back in. If no reference appears for a few weeks I'll delete the mention. Binksternet (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I read this point quite differently. With the commoditization of hi fi (speakers and electronics) to a large extent, manufacturers have looked for other ways to boost earnings. One way tis to combine speakers with electronics, making the adjustments you note, and charging higher price. There certainly are technical reasons for using powered speakers, and you note most of them. But the economic motive also contributes to the form chosen; the technical advantages could have been achieved in other ways, but they would not increase the selling price in a way the combination could command. That's why I removed the fact tag, for there was not a technical point, I thought, but an evident economic one. Comment? ww (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I felt that the way it presented in the article was leading the reader to believe that economic factors were the first, leading or most important reason for creating self-powered speakers. I don't agree with that assessment, and would rather see the economic reason appended to or woven into a general discussion about self-powered loudspeakers. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Our Gentle Reader is entitled, as I see it, to know that there economic reasons which influence the speakers they audition and perhaps purchase. For instance, North Creek left the high end speaker business (kits, completed speakers, ...) for economic reasons and are now a wholesale manufacturer/distributor. Whether, in this case, it is the first reason (a possible reading, though not what I take from it) or 2nd etc doesn't much matter to me, from teh perspective of informing our Reader. Rewording to avoid the meaning you see would be appropirate. Wil you or should I? ww (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

## Merge

Multi driver loudspeaker system should not be merged into loudspeaker because loudspeaker is already quite lengthy. Also, loudspeaker is too general. Multi-driver speaker system is about speaker systems, not literally just the speaker driver itself. Backup1 (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• You're probably thinking that the merge will make this article bigger. It won't, as the worthy information that the other article covers is already covered here. It has a section on crossover, this one has a section on crossover. Both articles have a section on the history of the loudspeaker. In my opinion, the 2-way, 3-way, 4-way and 5-way sections of the Multi-driver loudspeaker system article aren't well-developed, are based on original research, and have fundamental problems with the way that they are presented in that they are based on a narrow viewpoint related only to home and car audio. They don't need to survive that article's being deleted or merged. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• The multi-drive loudspeaker article is poorly done and adds little to that foundhere. At present, it has little reasons to be a seaprate article. And the point above is well made. The merge should be, in effect, deletion of hte Multi drive article. ww (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• A reminder: Deletion forms no part of the article merger process. Even editors without accounts have all of the tools necessary for performing article mergers. Uncle G (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I bet ww was talking about deletion of all content by transforming the page into a redirect. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I was also expecting that after a merge not much of the multi-drive article will survive here. Not much actual content in that article. Unc's reminder is unconnected to either of these. ww (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge action has been initiated. I took some bits from the history section and brought them to this article. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

## Something's not right here

Look at the formula ${\displaystyle p(\theta )={\frac {p_{0}J_{1}(k_{a}\sin \theta )}{k_{a}\sin \theta }}}$. The ${\displaystyle {k_{a}\sin \theta }}$ parts should cancel out. Not to mention the <small> tags don't actually do anything to change the size of a formula with that type of division. — NRen2k5(TALK), 09:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

NR, be bold! Fix it... ww (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

They don't cancel out. The ${\displaystyle J_{1}}$ stands for the Bessel function. 67.230.149.181 (talk)

## Active crossover or Bi-amped?

Hi, the picture labeled as "active crossover" would more correctly be labelled as "Bi-amped" the picture as shown could just as easily be using a passive crossover (passive filters components working by attenuation only) as it could an active crossover circuit (semiconductor or thermionic devices using frquency selective feedback to achieve little/no signal loss or signal gain). generally an active crossover would be used in this position on PA and other professional equipment, but it is usually considered that for the highest quality/fidelity, cut only (passive) filters are used as they cause less problem with phase distortion and are probably most commonly used in this way by audiophiles in multi-amped, stereo "hifi" setups. Cannissolis (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You say "it is usually considered" and I ask what are your sources? There is no such thing as phase distortion; phase change is a result of filtering and must be accommodated no matter if it is active or passive. The overall phase coherency of the full output of the loudspeaker would be the goal of the most discerning listeners... phase response of individual components is a part of the picture.
At any rate, the diagram accurately depicts an active crossover. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cannissolis (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)The diagram as shown could just as easily be bi-amped with passive filtering and does not show the difference between active and passive crossovers, other than the fact you have written active crossover on the box on the diagram. I re-iterate; this box could just as easily be passively filtered, and what you have illustrated is how to bi-amp, moreover I find that this misconception is repeated with growing frequency. Distortion is any change in the output signal that is not present in the input signal so, a change of phase with frequency that is present in the output but not the input counts as distortion, hence, phase distortion. As you picked up on the least important part of my writing first I presume my original point was unclear, I hope I have been more specific this time? However, as to your request for sources regarding the "usually considered" part of my reply I might suggest the Radio Designers Handbook as a good starting point.

P.S. It has just occurred to me that it may be worth clearing up your confusion as to what "passive" and "Active" filtering is and as References appear to be required I suggest "The Art of Electronics by Paul Horowitz & Winfield Hill" This is a good modern electronics fundamentals book and used as reference by most universities and clearly delineates the meaning of these terms in regards to filtering. I trust the term "Bi-amping" is self explanatory?

I understand your first point, and you are absolutely 100% right in that the box labeled "Active Crossover" could just as well be made up of passive components. I'm sure whoever did the artwork was imagining the greater majority of modern loudspeaker situations rather than the rare and tweaky ones with an interest shown only by aficionados of passive components.
Cut-only filters offer less phase distortion? I say that's a crock. A crossover filter which acts as a dividing network for a loudspeaker has the loudspeaker driver and the loudspeaker enclosure or horn following it; all those parts have phase changes which come from their inherent characteristics and from the way they work together. Whatever phase 'distortion' which might be seen at the output of the crossover must be judged not at the crossover but at the output of the loudspeaker. Because of this, the phase characteristics of the crossover filters are only one part of the total picture. The crossover is ideally configured in concert with the shaping of the box and the positioning of the drivers; none of the elements can be said to have phase distortion until the whole is examined. Me, I'd much rather have active DSP for a crossover so that I can finely tweak the phase characteristics of the filters, adding all-pass or whatever is needed, and so achieve the best from the loudspeaker box and drivers. Binksternet (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, now that we have established that the pictures are wrongly labelled and misleading does anybody know how to edit them?Cannissolis (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

## Thin-film speakers coming soon

I just came across this concept at wired.com (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/05/0501piezo/) and then came to this wikipedia article to try to learn more about thin-film speakers, but found no information. These "speakers" are made of a transparent, plastic film that will be fitted to the front surface of TV screens. According to wired.com, they have an impressive frequency range and volume. Very interesting.--Jmjanzen (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

## Sensitivity or power rating?

I would like to see some reference for "manufacturers tend to overstate sensitivity of speakers" . In my experience it is sometimes hard to come by the sensitivity of a speaker system, at all, and this is a measurement that allows little tampering. Certainly it is not true that Joe Sixpack boasts about sensitivity, but he does boast about power rating! Also it is well known that the power rating of speakers is often exaggerated or measured in dubious ways. (I don't feel qualified to edit the page myself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.100.243.19 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This paper, written by one of the very top American loudspeaker designers, answers your question. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

## Many fact tags

I think the addition of multiple fact tags per paragraph is inappropriate when a whole paragraph can be covered by one maintenance tag. This article has long had many unreferenced statements but this swarm of fact tags is not what's needed. Once a paragraph has a reference, other parts of it that aren't controversial can be assumed in good faith to be sourced. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the June 7 paragraph composed in prose by Stevertigo, though unreferenced, didn't get tagged with 'fact' tags in the recent flurry of tagging initiated by Stevertigo. I will rectify the oversight. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
To preserve continuity in context, I have added the section below. -Stevertigo 00:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion continues at #Many fact tags (cont.)

## Explanations and citations

Discussion moved from User talk:Binksternet#Speaker-[1] -Stevertigo 00:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a little bit about how a speaker works, and you moved it to the "history" section? Is this correct, that you think that how something actually works is not only not particularly relevant to its description, but that such operational explanation belongs... under the "history" section?

While I understand that you work in the business and deal with these things all day, it seems that your concern is more with style and shopping selection than any fundamental explanation of about how something actually works. In even an article about a topic in which you claim expertise, you appear to be replacing basic useful information with pamphlet reading. Thanks, -Stevertigo 07:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your unreferenced paragraph describing how a speaker works is the one I moved. You are mistaken about where it went: I put it in Loudspeaker#Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker, not the history section. I also felt that the Terminology section you created by adding a heading and some text could better be put at the top of the page as one of the first defining paragraphs about what is meant by 'loudspeaker'. "Shopping"? "Pamphlet reading"? I don't see what you are seeing. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see you moved it first to the "history" section [2] and then just yesterday to a new "electrical "characteristics""[sic] section. I think its a good article that is missing a certain basic introduction to the physics by which it operates. You do understand that all of the gear you use was invented by physicists and engineers (not "sound engineers") who's only important contribution was that they managed to figure out how to make the thing work. They did so by assembling a chain of certain physical forces into a machine that does work.
I think physics is interesting and that others who might see an article about a natural or even artificial physical object may also be interested in the basic physics behind it. Yes, speakers come in lots of shapes and sizes, and you can use different kinds of connectors to hook them up, and some speakers sound crappy while others sound transparent and clear, and separation of frequencies is important too, and, yes, terms like "impedance" and "ohms" were thrown in there to make it look cool, but the article didn't actually explain how the device works until I wrote the explanation. And you somehow think that how a thing like a speaker works is less important than its cabinet design and series wiring.
Unsourced? Here are the sections above the "electrical "characteristics""[sic] section that have no sources: The lead paragraph, the driver design section (including subsections driver types, full range, subwoofer, woofer, midrange, tweeter), the crossover section has only one source - a buyer's guide, actually. Nice. The enclosures and specificiations (top) sections each have only two sources - both legit, but sparse and covering only four specific points in sections that detail perhaps twenty each.
I'm curious now if you might also be interested in how a guitar pickup and a condenser microphone work. -Stevertigo 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You continue to be mistaken about my moving your material to History. The link you posted confirms that I moved it that one time to where continues to be now, in the section about electrical characteristics. Don't just examine the diff, examine the article below the diff.
Physics is certainly interesting and an explanation of 'how it works' is always applicable but I think new information added to the article should be referenced. A great many articles of general interest were composed wa-a-ay back when Wikipedia was a Wild West scene of people pouring out their personal observations, shooting from the hip. This one suffers from the echo of those times in that it is too-sparsely referenced. The way forward to make sure new material is cited. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I admit I misread the diff, which printed the "history" section header above the text of the "electrical characteristics" section. I apologise for this misread, and am sure you know it was an honest mistake. My other points stand, in that 1) you made an editorial decision to demote substantive content, and 2) did so based on your opinions about sourcing —that "echoes of those [past] times" linger on in unsourced material, that "the way forward" is to restrict new material, and (by direct implication) that old unsourced writing is acceptable. In keeping with your concepts, I am going to remove or fact tag all unsourced material in that article. You can make your case for not removing or hiding-until-sourced any such writing then. At such time I suppose you will have to intuit some kind of conceptual compromise between deletionism and inclusionism —demanding that all writing be sourced or else accepting such writing for its relevance and accuracy.
BTW, If you are interested in the physics behind music reproduction, there are some more physical transduction chains relevant to music listed at transducer, that need completion. I have started a few of them in the form (amplified signal → magnetic field → motion → air pressure). Regards, -Stevertigo 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

## Many fact tags (cont.)

Discussion continued from #Many fact tags

User:Binksternet in quotes with responses by Stevertigo:

1. BN: "I think the addition of multiple fact tags per paragraph is inappropriate when a whole paragraph can be covered by one maintenance tag." Is this opinion backed up by the WP style guide? -SV
2. BN: "This article has lon\g had many unreferenced statements but this swarm of fact tags is not what's needed." Is this opinion backed up by policy? -SV
3. BN: "Once a paragraph has a reference, other parts of it that aren't controversial can be assumed in good faith to be sourced." - Is this opinion backed up by either style guide or policy? -SV
4. BN: "I noticed that the June 7 paragraph composed in prose by Stevertigo, though unreferenced, didn't get tagged with 'fact' tags in the recent flurry of tagging initiated by Stevertigo." - It had not been an issue, until you deprecated it, claiming all new material requires a source, and by direct implication stating that all old material doesn't. I am of course now multitasking in dealing with you, just as you have been getting accustomed to multitasking when you perouse through my latest contributions history. -Stevertigo 00:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
1. The article WP:Fact#When not to use this template talks about using the 'Unreferenced' tag for sections lacking cites. Paragraphs aren't talked about, but "drive-by" tagging is deprecated; that is, injudicious tagging from editors who don't attempt to address the issues. Apt advice. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
2. See above about drive-by tagging. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Uncontroversial parts don't need to be cited, per WP:CITE. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
4. I didn't directly imply "all old material doesn't" need a reference. Much text has been accepted for a long time, but if questioned it will need to be supported by ref. Without being questioned, judiciously, the text can remain in place. As far as new material requiring a source, that's my personal dream for articles such as this that were created in the early days of WP and have a lot of unsupported prose. It's not a WP guideline, but I think it's the way forward. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Bink in quotations, with replies by SV.
1. BN: "The [project page] WP:Fact#When not to use this template talks about..." There is no such section on that page, and in fact its a project page, not a policy page. Do you understand the difference between policy pages and project pages? Are you familiar with how to link to page sections? Maybe you can clarify this before I go on to talk about "drive-by tagging" etc., because that concept seems to me to be quite relevant to you and your recent hobby of taking an cumbersome interest in articles that I edit. -SV
3. BN: "Uncontroversial parts don't need to be cited, per WP:CITE." Ah, so you now say that "uncontroversial parts" require no sources, which is quite different from your above stated opinion that "all new material be sourced" (paraphrased). The closest I could find on that page that says even close to what you claim is "Sources for uncontentious statements need not be described in the text beyond adding the citation," which does not suggest as you do at all, merely that source itself need not be described or qualified in the text, and can be just cited. -SV
4. BN: "I didn't directly imply "all old material doesn't" need a reference. Much text has been accepted for a long time, but if questioned it will need to be supported by ref." - Keep in mind, when you say "this requires certain treatment," you are directly implying that "that does not." In this case you based your views on a concept of "new" material, which itself directly implies a concept of "old" material (paraphrased). Above, in the non-existent policy you claim to reference, you used a different concept to distinguish edits —"uncontroversial" you called it. That's a different way of conceptualizing an edit from the temporal one previous. Putting aside for a moment your other flawed concepts, does changing your argument in mid-stream help you make your case? -SV
1. BN: "Without being questioned, judiciously, the text can remain in place." You should be editing policy pages first. I think you might find your views welcome there. -SV
2. BN: "As far as new material requiring a source, that's my personal dream for articles such as this that were created in the early days of WP and have a lot of unsupported prose." - I see. So one might say that "[you] have a dream?" -SV
3. "It's not a WP guideline, but I think it's the way forward." - Ah. The panacea. So you're the one who found it. Do share, but do not be offended by my lack of interest —coincidentally of a similar degree to your excess interest in my editing.
For your information, though I have contributed to its development over the years, I do not control policy. If you have ideas about "the way forward" as you call it, send a note to wikien-l. They will be able to help you develop your ideas to their fullest potential. -Stevertigo 03:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I am intrigued at the absence of references from your editing style; I found in my perusal that you used not one reference from June 1 to June 15 inclusive. Can you point me to an edit that you made in May or an earlier month where you employed a reference? Just curious whether you're holding other people to a higher standard than you hold yourself. Me? I add references where I can. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
A long time ago, I realized that I was not going to win the source game. In the context of that I realized that requiring sources for every concept in a lede would not only mean that every link had also a reference, but that in reality what we would have is either a way to conceptualize articles by collaboration —what people loosely call "consensus" —or that articles would wind up being dominated by particular sources that may themselves often carry colorizations that were counterconceptual. Recent edits to the salvation article demonstrate this paradox quite well — the new edits are sourced, but are problematic, while the previous unsourced writing (mine and a few others) covers the concepts very straightforwardly, and gives references to sources too. Because our articles cannot simply be a listing of quotations (we actually have to write them), the spectrum of writing still looks basically unchanged regardless of whether "sourcing" itself is applied, such that the range can just as easily look like this:
unsourced brilliance .. sourced nonsense
as it can look like this:
unsourced nonsense .. reliably sourced brilliance
Of course we use the concept of "reliable sources" to loosely refer to sources that are not nonsense, or to pejoratively indicate sources we just don't like as "unreliable," but "agreeable sources" might be the better term.
The first source you found for Talk:American Dream falls into the latter categories ("RS brilliance," "agreeable"), not just because it echoed what I wrote, or because what I wrote gave you the concepts that helped you find it, but because they got it done: They had to deal with it in a short amount of space and gave it some real thought. As did I. As did you not. We can do that too by the way (collaborate toward brilliance), and we can do it not badly, and even then the parts can still be sourced out. -Stevertigo 04:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

## is there any correlation

between the size of the cone and voice coil? I mean if we take a 15 inch driver, then usually, in pa market atleast you'd see that these might have from 2.5 to 4 inch coils, the last usually handle far more watts up to 1000-1500 rms, so what im asking is, is it only watts dependent thing? say we're going to run a 15 inch drive with no more than 200 watts then would it make sense to have a 3-or 4 inch voic coil for it, instead of 2.5? would there be any differences in terms of sound quality except the wattage difference? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.47.247 (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Try the Reference Desk, this page is for discussing improvements to the article. SpinningSpark 15:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Spark is right, this is better handled at Reference. Nevertheless, your might be helped by a realization that most such design decisions are the result of multiple, often conflicting, considerations. For instance, it is certainly true that a large voice coil will be able to handle more power, but it will also have greater mass/inertia. As well, a larger voice coil will distribute stress to the cone over a larger space, thus most likely reducing flexure related motionally caused distortion. On the other hand, these distortions can be reduced by different cone composition choices too. Electrical properties vary with voice coil size; in some designs this may be an issue. In tweeters, putting the cone inside the voice coil also offers differences in behavior.
There are so many competing issues that no single statement about virtue or vice of a choice about voice coil size is obviously correct. Well, maybe that larger ones have greater mass.... But then you can consider aluminum voice coils vs copper, so maybe even that isn't inevitably true. ww (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

## Hyphenated terms

An editor has gone through the article removing the hyphens from hyphenated terms. I know this is a sadly trivial thing to discuss, but I don't think that these kinds of style changes should be made without good reason, WP:ENGVAR might apply here. I believe that in just about all instances the original hyphenated term is the more common, and in one instance the change has caused a redirect in a wikilink, which kind of makes my point - article titles are chosen to be the most common form. I am going to put the hyphens back, I already did it once and they got reapplied, but the editor apparently was not reverting, he says he did not notice he had done it twice. In any case his response did not include a justification for keeping it unhyphenated, so I am taking that as consent. SpinningSpark 15:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:HYPHEN generally supports your reversions—it casts you in the British camp, and Ronaldomundo in the American camp, along grossly generalized lines. The wiki article "Mid-range" settled the question in favor of the hyphen, and we can take a cue from that. Even though "pistonlike" without the hyphen can be found at Wiktionary and at Merriam-Webster Unabridged, "piston-like" serves just as well, and is a long-established construction. Your changing of "AKA" to "called" shouldn't be questioned at all. "Multispeaker" is not in the dictionary as one word, and must have the hyphen. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I hope this is the correct place to discuss edits.

I added a link to the section on Flat Panel Speakers to www.feonic.com. This was then removed by Binksternet. I assume the edit notes mean remove link to manufacturer. I had initially avoided adding this link as I am unsure of the rules for links to company websites until I saw numerous links to manufacturers and what appear just to be shopping carts for the various types of speakers. These include References 16(Yorkville), 18 (SVConline.com) and 29(Manger loudspeakers) and I suspect there are more.

FeONIC have developed and patented a new approach to speakers which uses Magnetostriction and Terfernol-D - both Wikipedia articles. I intend to add Magnetostriction powered speakers as a paragraph after PiezoElectric speakers being similar. This would include a link to FeONIC as they are the main developers of this approach to creating sound (first product in 2001/2002 as the Soundbug). They have multiple Patents which can be referenced if appropriate.

Will this be appropriate and if not why are the shops allowed to have links.

Regards

Maptrak (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The shops should not have links. Manufacturer links should be to specific white pages which discuss a technology, specific data sheets which prove a point, and expert articles written about the subject in general. Manufacturer page links should not be sales pages or product pages. Feel free to link to white papers about magnetostriction, etc. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. I wonder if the problem is that I'm not being specific enough with the URL. The links I described are pointing to specific products and therefore arguably could fall under white papers, data sheets or expert articles whereas I simply pointed to the website www.feonic.com. So it would appear links to manufacturers sites are not invalid but the Wikipedia reader needs to be taken to something specific that will increase their knowledge about a subject. In the FeONIC case there are product datasheet PDFs which show how the technology improves Speech Transmission Index ratings in comparison with traditional horn speakers for trainstations etc F1.3 improves Speech Transmission Index Page 2 provides data sheets to prove a point so should be more appropriate. There are also media articles in e.g. Architects Journals which back up this capability e.g metro report on distributed mode loudspeaker for trainstations. Would these be more appropriate? Just learning and want to get it right.

Maptrak (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

## Permanent magnet doesn't have to be magnetic?

Can the permanent magnet be not magnetic at all? I.E. jsut iron; then it would be much easier to home make a speaker to your own preferences. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Look; this cone and voice coil works when held up to anyhting iron: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dJKh2MYIjo lol that's my video. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that a speaker will produce sound when its magnet(s) are replaced with any ferrous object, this would not be a practical means of reproducing sound. The efficiency of the speaker would be greatly reduced, and a substantial amount of distortion would be introduced, as one effect of the iron (or other ferrous material) would be to act as a sort of mechanical sound wave rectifier. (This is the same reason why many AC devises produce an "electrical hum" at twice the frequency of their AC voltage source; the ferrous parts are only attracted to, and not repelled from, the alternating field produced within the device). 173.213.130.195 (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.213.130.195 (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

## Coaxial loudspeaker

I think we need an article named Coaxial loudspeaker. Nevertheless, I have removed once again a paragraph supposedly about coaxial loudspeakers. The wording I removed is this:

A coaxial driver is a loudspeaker driver with two or several combined concentric drivers, usually a dome tweeter and a conical extended mid-range driver. The main purpose of coaxial design is the same as with full-range: To produce a single point source for sound. The main difference is that in a coaxial driver there are two or more voice coils and radiating surfaces, which means a crossover network is required. Coaxial drivers have been produced by many companies, such as Altec, Tannoy, Pioneer, KEF, BMS, Cabasse and Genelec.

The reference supporting this paragraph is here: http://www.genelec.com/documents/other/Genelec%208260A%20Technical%20Paper.pdf

For me, the PDF reference doesn't work. User:Uikku says it works okay but I get an error message saying "The file is damaged and could not be repaired." Even if it worked, I can't imagine that Genelec is going to support a well-written paragraph about coaxial loudspeakers. Will they list the past manufacturers and past successful designs? Will they talk about early Tannoy and Altec technology? Or will they completely ignore the Altec 601 and assert that coaxial drivers are typically mid- and high-frequency drivers? The Altec was a 2-way, with LF and HF drivers—a huge factor in studio monitoring in its day, as well as some proprietary boxes used by regional live sound companies. The Altec 601 had a horn-loaded compression driver for the highs. The deleted paragraph's certainty that coaxial loudspeaker drivers only cover mid- and high-frequency ranges is false, as is its avowal that dome tweeters are always the HF driver. I have deleted this paragraph for its unsuitability and its incorrect assumptions as much as for its error message reference URL. If any paragraph is to be written about coaxial speakers, it should not assume that Genelec's most recent development is where it all started... Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The link does work, though Acrobat v7 or above is required to be able to read it. The PDF does support the text and does indeed mention the list of other manufacturers in its "Coaxial Driver Development" section on page 3. Seems like there's no assumption of good faith, or that the problem couldn't possibly be at your end, going on here. --WebHamster 21:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It is true that I've been a Luddite in terms of updating my laptop, which I'm using now to look at the article. Too many times that I've updated browsers, apps, plugins and operating systems have resulted in undesired losses in productivity for work. Still, the PDF thing wasn't the length and breadth of my problems with the paragraph. What about a dome tweeter being claimed as the default high frequency component? Come on! The very important Altec 601 used a compression driver, not a dome tweeter. As well, its other driver was a 12-inch LF unit, not a mid-frequency driver. I don't really care what Genelec says in their PDF if it is verifiably WRONG. Binksternet (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It may well be "verifiably" wrong, but you haven't verified that it is, whereas the current prose (at least until you deleted it) was verified by a reliable source. Currently you are working from personal knowledge which is a no-no. Don't forget that truth is irrelevant on WP, it's verifiability that counts and for you to delete a selection based purely on your own personal knowledge is the wrong way to go about it. Either rewrite the section and supply references to show your 'correct' version or leave the currently verified text alone. --WebHamster 10:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Back home to my 'main' computer and I can now see that the PDF works. The PDF agrees that the Altec coaxial unit was a compression driver, not a dome tweeter, and that the surrounding driver was a 12" LF unit. It's nice to see that the Genelec PDF is right on the money. The unsupported article text which didn't match the PDF has been taken out. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)